Hirsch and Bellavance 1 NOVICE LEARNER DRIVER PERCEPTIONS OF THE EFFICIENCY OF
DRIVING SIMULATOR-BASED TRAINING IN A NATURAL SETTING IN QUEBEC
Pierro Hirsch, Virage Simulation
85 Montpellier
Montreal, Quebec
H4N 2G3
[email protected]
François Bellavance, HEC Montréal, RRSR, CIRRELT and GERAD
[email protected]
Submitted November 15, 2013
This article contains 5,246 words (including 250 words each for the six tables and one
photograph). This is an updated version of the article presented at the Canadian Multidisciplinary
Road Safety Conference in Montreal, Quebec, May 2013 and initially submitted to the TRB for
review on July 23rd, 2013.
ABSTRACT
Novice, adolescent driver overrepresentation in road crashes is a well-documented, robust
phenomenon. Driver education and training are popular but controversial interventions that have
rarely demonstrated safety benefits. Flight simulators have proven effective in pilot training and
the decreasing costs and increasing quality of simulation technology make driving simulatorbased training (DSBT) more feasible. In 2010, a long-term, naturalistic, transfer-of-training (ToT)
study began to examine the effectiveness of substituting DSBT for part of the on-road training.
Within the ToT study, one driving simulator hour can replace one on-road hour for up to 50% of
the 15 hours of mandatory on-road lessons. The final results of the ToT study, due in 2015, will
address two main questions. One, how does DSBT compare with on-road instruction in terms of
performance on the government road exam? Two, does DSBT affect adolescent driver safety?
This article presents questionnaire data from the first cohort of graduate learner drivers who
substituted at least one hour of on-road training with one driving simulator hour. The
questionnaires address learners’ general perceptions of learning to drive and their specific
perceptions of DBST and its comparative efficiency to on-road training as well as driving
teachers’ perceptions of their learners’ driving competence. Results indicate that DSBT compared
favorably with on-road lessons and is perceived to be either more efficient than or equally
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Hirsch and Bellavance 2 efficient to on-road lessons for 13 of 15 specific driving skills. In addition, driving teachers gave
their learners high competency ratings.
INTRODUCTION
The overrepresentation of novice adolescent drivers in crash rates is a well-documented and
complex public health challenge that requires multiple interventions. Graduated licensing
regulations that reduce overall exposure by prolonging the learner stage or that restrict high-risk
exposure through night curfews and peer-aged passenger limits have been successful. However,
evaluations show that when these exposure-based interventions expire, the crash rates of
unsupervised novice adolescent drivers return to unacceptably high levels [1 - 2]. Therefore,
several governments around the world are refocusing their attention on driver training.
One practical approach is to study successful training methods in other fields, e.g. aviation.
Flight simulators training has reduced training costs and risks and improved training efficiency knowledge and skills developed in flight simulators transfer very well to real aviation systems [3,
4]. Due to decreasing costs of computer hardware and software and increasing quality and fidelity
of image production, driving simulator-based training (DSBT) for novice car and truck drivers has
become more feasible. Several studies indicate that DSBT is an effective learning method for
novice drivers [5-12].
In 2010, Quebec driving schools were invited to participate in a pilot study to validate the
transfer-of-training (ToT) to on-road driving of skills learned on programmed scenarios delivered
on the specially designed VS500M driving simulator (Figure 1). This simulator includes a motionvibration platform and a 180-degree forward view, inset rear view mirrors and blind spot displays
to prevent negative training due to incomplete visual representations of the driving environment.
Participating driving school owners were required to respect the ToT study protocol which
included obtaining signed consent forms from learner drivers allowing researchers access to future
government driving records. Participating learners are permitted to substitute from one to six
hours of driving simulator training for an equal number of on-road hours within the mandatory 15hour of driving lessons for novice drivers. The two main goals of the ToT are to determine: (1)
whether novice adolescents learn driving skills with equal or greater efficiency in a driving
simulator as measured by their performance on the government probationary permit on-road
exams, and; (2) if DBST influences crash risk during novice drivers’ first years of unsupervised
driving.
Sub goals of the ToT study include measuring with questionnaires the perceptions of
novice drivers towards DSBT in terms of acceptability and comparative efficiency with in-car
training and also to measure driving teachers’ evaluations of their students’ driving competencies.
The final report for this ToT study is due December 2015. This article presents preliminary data
on the sub goals of the ToT study.
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Hirsch and Bellavance 3 FIGURE 1 Novice Driver Lesson on VS500M Simulator
METHOD
The Quebec Licensing System
In 2011, in Quebec a driver education program consisting of 24 hours of theory and 15 hours of
on-road training lasting not less than 12 months became mandatory for all candidates for a
probationary driver license. A probationary permit imposes certain restrictions on driving
privileges for two years after which a Class 5 permit with full privileges is issued. Candidates can
apply for a learner’s permit at the age of 16.
Participants
To date, three Quebec driving schools, all located outside major urban centers, are actively
participating in the ToT study. In total, 229 learner drivers, with an average age of 16.7 years and
52% female, have met the criteria of having taken at least one hour of training on the driving
simulator, completed all questionnaires and graduated from the driving school. Learner drivers
received no compensation for participating in the study. In addition, the 17 driving teachers who
administered the final on-road driving evaluation to the 229 learners each completed a
questionnaire evaluating their respective student’s driving competencies.
Driving Simulator Scenarios
Vision skill training for drivers is considered essential for the achievement of basic and
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Hirsch and Bellavance 4 advanced vehicle control and consistent safe driving outcomes [13]. Therefore, vision skill
training was the primary and explicit instructional focus of all the driving simulator scenario
programming. Prior to commencing the ToT study, extensive work was completed to create and
test the pedagogical content and delivery methods of the training scenarios programmed into the
VS500M driving simulator. Scenario programming followed proven pedagogical principles, e.g.
progression from simple to complex tasks, and exploited the technological advantages of
simulation, e.g. performance replays, overhead views, augmented cuing. Learning content
followed the topics listed in the Quebec government novice driver curriculum [14], e.g. changing
lanes, merging onto the expressway, passing, left and right turns etc…However, the instructional
focus was on using simulator features to help novices learn where and when to look before and
during all driving manoeuvres and to train their expectations of what to look for and how to
interpret information from visible and latent hazards, e.g. visual exploration and hazard
perception. Eco-driving training exercises with objective feedback were also included to help
learners understand the influence of the physical forces that affect fuel consumption.
A total of 44 driving-simulator learning scenarios, each an average of seven minutes long,
were organized into six one-hour sessions and distributed according the government curriculum.
Each one-hour driving simulator session replaces one of six on-road hours within the 15-hours of
mandatory on-road lessons. Each session is supervised by one professional driving teacher per
learner except for the eco-drive session where groups of up to three students can supervised by
one teacher. Simulator sessions are distinctly different from the typical on-road lesson in which
the trainer sits beside the learner, controls the vehicle, when necessary, with dual brakes and
verbally provides the learner with: a short list of training objectives or tasks at the start;
navigational guidance to the roads where these tasks are to be practiced; instruction, coaching and
feedback during these tasks, and; a general review at the end of the hour. In a typical simulator
session consisting of between five and ten different training scenarios, the driving teacher sits
behind the learner and outside his field of vision (see Figure 1.) in order to enhance the immersive
effects of the simulator and to encourage the development of the learner’s sense of autonomy1. At
the start of each scenario, the learning objective(s) appear(s) on a PowerPoint slide that the learner
is asked to read out loud. These objectives are the focus of a programmed scenario designed to
create the conditions that maximize the amount and variety of experiential learning opportunities,
e.g. a potential to practice forty or more consecutive lane changes during one seven-minute
scenario, a frequency too difficult and too risky for real world conditions yet ideal for developing
automaticity in complex manoeuvres. When appropriate, objective and precise feedback is
provided to each learner during and after a scenario from within the simulation. At the end of each
specific scenario and again at the end of the entire session, the teacher provides his own
assessment of the learner’s progress.
The study methodology took into account the fact that teachers accustomed to training
novice drivers on-road in uncontrolled, dynamic environments would need to adjust their methods
to train novice drivers within the programmed, safe environment of a driving simulator. To
increase the probability that participating driving school teachers would adapt successfully and to
maximize the pedagogical advantages of the programmed simulator scenarios, several provisions
1
Based on the first author’s observations during decades of teaching driving, it appears that many learners do not feel they are in full control of their vehicle as long as the teacher beside them is capable of applying his own brake pedal. TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Hirsch and Bellavance 5 were made: a three-day, train-the-trainer course was provided; a teacher’s guide was written and
made available on the screen of the driving simulator operator station, and; annual trainer
workshops were organized.
Due to the naturalistic design of this study, numerous factors that potentially influence
participation in the study and the number of hours each learner took on the simulator were beyond
the researchers’ control. For example, signed consent forms granting access to future driving
records were required for minor-aged learners. Many parents refused consent so it is possible that
learners who may have wanted to participate in the study were excluded. Other learners may have
decided not to participate for reasons unrelated to their openness to learning to drive on a
simulator. Overall, it is difficult to estimate the extent of any self-selection bias that may exist in
the study population. Among the learners who did chose to participate with the consent of a
parent, access to the driving simulator in each driving school was influenced by personal
scheduling conflicts and the limited availability of only one simulator per school. Therefore, the
exact number of one-hour simulator sessions to be taken by each learner driver participant was not
prescribed within the study design. Differences between learners in the number of driving
simulator sessions taken will be accounted for in the final analysis of the study data.
Data sources
Questionnaires
A total of four questionnaires were completed, three by learners at different times during their
training, and one by their respective driving teachers after the final on-road evaluation. At the time
of registration at the driving school or soon thereafter, learners and their parents were informed of
the details and conditions of the ToT study. If they agreed to participate, consent forms were
signed and learners completed a questionnaire measuring computer use, past traffic experience on
any type of motorized or non-motorized vehicle, risk perceptions, and lifestyles. After the first
driving simulator lesson, the second questionnaire was completed to evaluate that learning
experience. The third learner questionnaire was completed after the final on-road evaluation at the
end of the mandatory twelve-month driving school program to assess the learning experiences of
simulator-based and on-road lessons and to compare the efficiency of both training methods
across 15 specific driving skills. At the same time, driving teachers completed the fourth
questionnaire rating their respective student’s driving competence.
Questionnaire items specific to driving-simulator use were developed for the ToT study
and tested with actual students during the development phase of the project. The remaining
questionnaire items on the learner questionnaires were taken from an extensive study of
adolescent drivers by Hirsch [15]. The driving teacher questionnaire items were taken from an
earlier study by Hirsch [16].
RESULTS
The responses reported in the following Tables do not always total 229 due to missing and
incomplete questionnaires. Table 1 compares learner expectations and perceptions about learning
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Hirsch and Bellavance 6 to drive and their skill achievements from at the time of registration at the driving school to the
time of graduation. The most dramatic change occurred in relation to the perceived difficulty of
learning how to drive. At registration, only 15.3% of the learners agreed strongly that they would
find it easy to learn to drive. One year later, 51.5% of the same group agreed strongly that they
had found it easy to learn to drive. The change in relation to becoming good drivers was less
important and moved in the opposite direction, with 70.3% agreeing strongly that they will
become good drivers and then, one year later, only 55.3% agreeing strongly that they had
achieved that goal. The change in perceptions in relation to becoming safe drivers also moved in
the opposite direction with 86.9% agreeing strongly that they will become safe drivers and then,
one year later, only 75.3% agreeing strongly that they had achieved that goal.
TABLE 1 Comparison of Self-Assessments of Ease of Learning to Drive and Driving Skills
Reported at Time of Registration in Driving School and One Year Later at Graduation
Time of
report
Self-assessment
Registration
Graduation
Registration
Graduation
Registration
Graduation
I will find it easy to learn to
drive
I found it easy to learn to
drive
I will be a good driver
I am a good driver
I will be a safe driver
I am a safe driver
n
Agree
strongly
(%)
Agree
moderately
(%)
Disagree
moderately
or strongly
(%)
229
15.3
63.8
20.9
227
51.5
41.8
6.6
229
226
229
227
70.3
55.3
86.9
75.3
28.0
43.4
13.1
24.2
1.8
1.3
0
0.4
Table 2 shows that learners did not take a uniform number of simulator-based training
sessions and that the variation was unevenly distributed among the three participating driving
schools. School A was the first to participate in the ToT study and became the site for beta testing
pedagogical content, delivery methods and also the methods most suited to its own clientele for
introducing and integrating simulator sessions into public expectations of traditional on-road
training. School B joined later and benefited from close cooperation with School A. School C
joined last and is geographically more distant from the other two schools. The administrator of
School C, for multiple reasons, restricted access to the driving simulator to only one hour per
student. Reasons for the distribution of the number of simulator hours taken per learner in the
other two driving schools are not known and exploratory analyses using the available data did not
reveal significant association between the number of training hours on the simulator and the
responses to the questionnaires.
TABLE 2 Number of Self-Reported Simulator Hours per Learner at Participating Driving
Schools
Simulator
hours
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Participating Driving Schools
School A
School B
School C
Paper revised from original submittal.
Hirsch and Bellavance 7 1
2
3
4 to 6
(No. of learners)
1
7
15
13
(No. of learners)
9
24
27
59
(No. of learners)
63
4
0
1
Table 3 reports responses to eight items that measure the learners’ appreciation of their
first lesson on the driving simulator. The first set of items focuses on the learners’ psychological
or emotional reactions to learning to drive on the simulator. The second set asks how well the
simulator session itself was structured and whether the learners appreciated the pedagogical
advantages unique to simulation and to the programmed scenarios used in this study, i.e. more
time to reflect on driving performance and structured scenarios focused on helping learners
understand where to look while driving. The responses in the “agree completely” column of Table
3 indicate that the learning experience during the first session on the simulator was perceived by a
majority of learners as enjoyable and stimulating, even if it was not completely easy or relaxing.
TABLE 3 Learner Perceptions of Driving Simulator-Based Training Reported After First
Driving Simulator Session
n
Agree
completely
(%)
Agree
moderately
(%)
Disagree
moderately
(%)
Disagree
completely
(%)
Easy
175
27.4
60.0
12.6
0
Relaxing
174
36.8
42.0
16.1
5.2
Enjoyable
174
65.5
29.3
5.2
0
Stimulating
174
56.3
35.6
7.5
0.6
objectives were clear and concise
175
90.3
9.7
0
0
was well-organized
175
91.4
8.6
0
0
gave me time to think about my
driving
174
82.2
16.7
0.6
0.6
helped me understand where I need
to look when I drive
174
94.8
5.2
0
0
Questionnaire items
Learning to drive on simulator was:
The simulator session:
The responses in the “agree completely” column of Table 3 indicate that the simulator
session itself received high evaluations for clarity of learning objectives, (90.3%), quality of
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Hirsch and Bellavance 8 lesson organization, (91.4%) and appreciation of the benefits of learning in an environment that
allowed more time for reflection (82.2%). Learners reported the highest level of appreciation,
(94.8%), for the simulator session’s contribution to helping them better understand where to look
when driving.
Table 4 reports the learners’ retrospective appreciation of the overall experience of
learning to drive on a driving simulator. The responses in the “complete agreement” column of
Table 4 present an interesting contrast to the responses reported in the “complete agreement”
column immediately following the first learning experience on the driving simulator (see Table 3).
For two of the questionnaire items, retrospective appreciation of learning on the simulator,
compared with the initial assessments after the first simulator session, increased substantially over
time, almost doubling for perceived easiness of learning (54.0% vs. 27.4%) and increasing by
38.3% for perceived relaxed quality of the learning experience (50.9% vs. 36.8%). For the study
sample that took more than one lesson of one-hour on the simulator, these changes in perception
regarding DBST might be attributable to their subsequent simulator experiences. For the 33% of
the study sample who reported taking only one simulator session, (see Table 2), other factors are
needed to explain the changes in their reported perceptions. It is interesting to note, however, that
this retrospective downward adjustment in perceived difficulty of learning on the simulator is
consistent with the tendency reported in Table 1 for study participants to perceive learning to
drive at the end of their driving lessons to have been easier than they had anticipated at the start of
the lessons. For the next two items in Table 4, compared with the initial assessments in Table 3,
retrospective appreciation decreased slightly over time – the perceived enjoyableness of driving
simulator-based learning decreased from the initially reported 65.5% to the retrospectively
reported 53.1% and the perceived stimulating quality of DBST decreased from the initially
reported 56.3% to the retrospectively reported 49.6%.
TABLE 4 Upon Graduation From Driving School, Learners’ Retrospective Perceptions of
the Overall Experience of Driving Simulator-Based Training
n
Agree
completely
(%)
Agree
moderately
(%)
No
opinion
(%)
Disagree
moderately
(%)
Disagree
completely
(%)
easy
224
54.0
37.0
2.7
6.3
0
relaxing
224
50.9
28.1
11.6
7.6
1.8
enjoyable
224
53.1
26.3
12.1
6.7
1.8
stimulating
224
49.6
29.0
13.8
5.8
1.8
Questionnaire items
In general, learning to
drive on simulator was
Table 5 presents the retrospective perceptions of participating driving school students
regarding their overall experiences learning to drive on-road. The responses reported in the
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Hirsch and Bellavance 9 “complete agreement” column in this Table present an interesting contrast to those reported in the
“complete agreement” column of Table 4 (retrospective perceptions of learning to drive in a
driving simulator). On-road driving lessons, compared with simulator-based training, were
perceived by fewer learners as easy, (31.1% vs. 54.0%) and relaxing, (24.8% vs. 50.9%), and by
nearly the same percentage of learners as enjoyable (52.6% vs. 53.1%) and stimulating (48.7% vs.
49.6%).
TABLE 5 Upon Graduation From Driving School, Learners’ Retrospective Perceptions of
the Overall Experience of On-Road Practical Driver Training
N
Agree
completely
(%)
Agree
moderately
(%)
No
opinion
(%)
Disagree
moderately
(%)
Disagree
completely
(%)
easy
225
31.1
60.0
5.8
3.1
0
relaxing
226
24.8
37.2
19.5
17.7
0.9
enjoyable
226
52.6
32.3
10.2
4.0
0.9
stimulating
226
48.7
38.5
11.1
1.3
0.4
Questionnaire items
In general, learning to
drive on the road was
An efficient method of learning is generally understood as one that achieves maximum
productivity with minimum wasted effort or expense. Table 6 reports, in descending order,
learners’ perceptions of the comparative efficiency of learning 15 specific driving skills on the
driving simulator vs. learning the same skills during on-road driving lessons. This question
attempts to go beyond the typical adolescent experience of simulators as gaming platforms and to
determine if and to what extent learners perceived the simulator as an effective learning platform
in comparison to traditional on-road lessons.
For every skill except speed control and parking, the percentages of learners that rated the
simulator as more efficient than on-road lessons were higher than the percentages that rated it as
less efficient. Furthermore, the percentages of learners that rated the simulator lessons as more
efficient to on-road training was greater than the percentages that rated simulators as equally
efficient to on-road training for four of the 15 skills. It is interesting to note that three of these four
driving skills, understanding mirrors and blind spots, risk perception and visual exploration, are
among the core vision skills that were the primary focus of the ToT driving simulator scenario
development. Driving in city traffic is the last of the four driving skills rated as more efficiently
taught on the simulator than on-road – this rating may be influenced by the location of the
participating driving schools outside large cities. For only two of the 15 driving skills, speed
control and parking, the ratings for on-road lessons exceeded those for the simulator, 34.8 vs. 30.3
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Hirsch and Bellavance 10 and 43.7 vs. 23.5 respectively. Note that speed control is not a specific lesson in the government
curriculum and is also not identical to the perceptual skill of speed judgment. Driving on-road
vehicles provides dynamic, vestibular feedback that would be prohibitively expensive to
reproduce in simulators intended for commercial driving schools. Learning to park is a specific
lesson in the government curriculum but not on the simulator – however, other simulator-based
scenarios cover spatial judgments helpful for parking, e.g. the session on blind spots and mirrors.
The fourth and last questionnaire in the ToT study collects the impressions of the 17
driving teachers who administered the final on-road driving evaluation at the 15th and final hour of
the Quebec mandatory driving course. For 164 learners, (72% of the sample), the driving teachers
had taught their respective learners at least one lesson on the driving simulator in addition to the
final on-road evaluation. Within this subgroup of learners, 30.1% had only one simulator lesson,
12.9% had two, 33.7% had three and 23.3% had four or more simulator lessons with the driving
teachers who conducted their on-road evaluation. Totalling all the lessons given in the driving
simulator and on-road, 77.3% of the learners had been taught by their teachers for six or more
hours. After the final on-road evaluation, the teachers predicted that 89.3% of their learners would
pass the Quebec government road exam on the first attempt.
TABLE 6 Upon Graduation from Driving School, Comparisons by Learners of the
Efficiency of One Hour of Simulator-based Instruction and One Hour of On-road
Instruction Across 15 Driving Skills
Learning content
Compared to a one-hour lesson on the road, a onehour lesson on the driving simulator was:
More
Equally
Less
n
efficient
efficient
efficient
(%)
(%)
(%)
Understanding the mirrors and
blind-spots
224
49.1
29.0
21.9
Risk perception
224
46.9
33.5
19.6
Visual exploration
224
40.6
35.7
23.7
Driving in city traffic
224
38.8
29.0
32.1
Expressways, merging and exiting
222
38.3
43.7
18.0
Respecting other road users
224
36.2
48.6
15.2
Pre-driving habits
224
36.1
35.3
28.6
Lane changes
224
35.7
44.2
20.1
Safe distances around the vehicle
224
32.6
40.2
27.2
Speed control
221
30.3
34.8
34.8
Driving in a straight line
224
29.0
43.8
27.2
Left turns
223
28.2
54.3
17.5
Right turns
224
27.2
55.4
17.4
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Hirsch and Bellavance 11 Rural highways
221
26.2
52.5
21.3
Parking
213
23.5
32.9
43.7
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The questionnaire responses from this ToT study indicate that after one year and a total of 15
hours of combined driving simulator and on-road lessons, driving school students tend to give
higher ratings for the ease and relaxation of learning on the simulator than they give for the ease
and relaxation of learning on-road. When asked to directly compare the efficiency of learning 15
specific driving skills on the driving simulator to the on-road lessons, the learners reported that
they found the simulator to be more efficient than or equivalently efficient to on-road lessons for
all skills except parking and speed control. For three skills specifically related to vision training,
i.e. understanding mirrors and blind spots, visual exploration and risk perception, the learners’
rankings of the simulator as more efficient than on-road training exceeded their rankings for the
simulator as equal to on-road training. This result is consistent with the learners’ high evaluations,
collected after their first driving simulator session, of the simulator scenarios’ explicit focus on
helping them to understand where they need to look while driving.
The naturalistic design of this study can be considered a strength and a limitation. The
strength is the ability to measure how professional driving teachers use driving simulator-based
training in a natural setting with actual learners preparing for their driving permit road exams. In
fact, an implicit aim of this ToT study is to discover, with the aid of empirical data, best practices
and methods for implementing DSBT. The limitation is the number of uncontrolled variables that
potentially influence how the driving simulator is actually used. However, this limitation applies
at least equally to the delivery of traditional on-road lessons in driving schools. Another potential
limitation is that the unique combination of specially designed learning scenarios focused on
vision skill development and the specific configuration of driving simulator hardware and
software, e.g. with blind spot displays, plus the initial and recurrent training for the driver trainers
may produce results that are not generalizable to other applications of DSBT.
The questionnaire results presented in this article may also be influenced by a selfselection bias, i.e. learner drivers who were already favorably pre-disposed towards DBST may
have chosen to enroll in driving schools equipped with driving simulators. This potential bias
would be problematic if the crash risk of these learner novice drivers is increased by DSBT.
Before we can determine what effect, if any, DSBT has on novice driver crash risk, we must wait
until 2015 after all the ToT study data, including driving records, will have been collected,
analyzed and compared with the driving records of an age- and sex-matched control group.
The process of learning to drive is a complex area of study that is arguably
underdeveloped in relation to its potential impact on adolescent novice driver safety. A multitude
of variables related to the learner driver, the teacher, the vehicle and the driving environment, i.e.
road, traffic and weather, interact in ways that make programmed instruction and the achievement
of consistent learning outcomes highly challenging. The introduction of programmed learning
scenarios delivered on realistic driving simulators into novice driver training holds promise for
trainers, program developers and researchers. Trainers can now exercise more control over
environmental variables during a lesson. Researchers and program developers can access reliable
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Hirsch and Bellavance 12 data from the simulator that may lead to improvements in the training process and safer outcomes
on the road.
Overall, preliminary questionnaire data from this ToT study indicate that the experience of
learning to drive on the driving simulator using specially programmed scenarios focused on
training visual skills compared favorably with on-road lessons, that DSBT is perceived by learners
to be more efficient than on-road lessons for 13 out of 15 specific driving skills and that these
learners earned high ratings of competency from their driving teachers.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was made possible by the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec that allowed
driving schools to use the driving simulator and programmed scenarios as a substitute for up to
50% of the mandatory on-road lessons and that provided some financial support to conduct the
study. The researchers also wish to recognize the valuable contributions of the participating
driving school owners and professional driving teachers who supported the introduction of a novel
learning technology into their profession and who continue to contribute their expertise to
optimize the use of driving simulators in novice driver training.
REFERENCES
1. MAYHEW, DR; SIMPSON, HM; DESMOND, K. and WILLIAMS, AF (2003).
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
"Specific and Long-Term Effects of Nova Scotia's Graduated Licensing Program." Traffic
Injury Prevention 4(2): 91-97.
VANLAAR, Ward; MAYHEW, Dan; MARCOUX, Kyla; WETS, Geert; BRIJS, Tom and
SHOPE, Jean (2009). "An evaluation of graduated driver licensing programs in North
America using a meta-analytic approach." Accident Analysis & Prevention 38(1): 155161.
BLICKENSDERFER, Beth; LIU, Dahai; HENRANDEZ, Angelica (2005). SimulationBased Training: Applying lessons learned in aviation to surface transportation modes,
Embry Riddle Aeronautical University.
SALAS, E. and CANNON-BOWERS J. A. (2001). "The Science of Training: A Decade of
Progress." Annual Review of Psychology 52: 471-499.
ALLEN, R. Wade; PARK, George; COOK, Marcia, and; ROSENTHAL, Theodore J.
(2003). Novice Driver Training Results and Experience with a PC Based Simulator.
Proceedings of the Second International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver
Assessment, Training and Vehicle Design.
FISHER, D. L. (2008). Evaluation of PC-Based Novice Driver Risk Awareness, National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
HIRSCH, P., PIGNATELLI, Sonia and BELLAVANCE, F. (2011). An Evaluation of the
Effectiveness of Simulator-Based Training on the Acquisition of Gear-Shifting Skills for
Learner Truck Drivers. Proceedings of the 21st Canadian Multidisciplinary Road Safety
Conference, May 8-11, 2011, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.
Hirsch and Bellavance 13 8. KORTELING, J.E.; HELSDINGEN, A., and VON BAYER, A. (2000). Handbook Lowcost Simulators, EUCLID RTP 11.8, ELSTAR.
9. MUNCIE, H. (2006). Design and Development of a Bus Simulator for Bus Driver
Training. School of Engineering, Cranfield University.
10. STRAYER, D. L. and DREWS, F. A. (2003). Simulator Training Improves Driver
Efficency: Transfer From the Simulator to the Real World. PROCEEDINGS of the Second
International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment, Training and
Vehicle Design.
11. PRADHAN, A. K.; DIVEKAR, G.; MASSERANG, K.; ROMOSER, M.; ZAFIAN, T.;
BLOMBERG, R. D.; THOMAS, F. D.; REAGAN, I.; KNODLER, M.; POLLATSEK, A.
and FISHER, D. L. (2011). "The effects of focused attention training on the duration of
novice drivers' glances inside the vehicle." Ergonomics 54(10): 917-931.
12. UHR, Marcel B.F.; FELIX, Daniel; BRYN, Williams J. and KRUEGER, Helmut (2003).
Transfer of training in an advanced driver simulator: Comparison between real world
environment and simulation in a manoeuvering driving task. DSC 2003.
13. LEE, J. D. (2005). Chapter 4. Driving Safety. Reviews of Human Factors and Ergonomics,
Sage. http://rev.sagepub.com/content/1/1/172
14. Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec. Road Safety Education Program for a New
Generation of Drivers. (No retrieval date. Early versions of final document accessed in
2010.)
https://secure.saaq.gouv.qc.ca/documents/documentation/sites/all/files/safety_program.pdf
15. HIRSCH, P. (2005). The Relationship between Markers of Risk-Taking Tendencies and
the First Year Driving Records of Young Drivers. PhD Thesis. Département de médecine
sociale et préventive. Faculté de médecine, Université de Montréal.
16. HIRSCH, P. (1997). An Exploration of the Predictive Assessment Abilities of Professional
Driving Teachers Regarding the Safety of 16 to 19 Year Old Drivers. Master’s Thesis.
Département de médecine sociale et préventive. Faculté de médecine, Université de
Montréal. Université de Montréal.
TRB 2014 Annual Meeting
Paper revised from original submittal.